CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s459D9084 { width:131.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s1230263B { height:24.9pt } .sBFF09201 { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8AD89215 { width:33.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9F64AD74 { width:14.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s10BCE039 { width:18.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s26066BE5 { width:25.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5395D7A { height:25.45pt } .s8A71A6DB { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s998F1FC0 { width:33.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FA3785C { width:14.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC39C6AF { width:18.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB1E4244A { width:25.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 77610/17 Veaceslav APOSTOL and Natalia APOSTOL against the Republic of Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15   February 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27   October 2017, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr M. Afanas, a lawyer practising in Chișinău. The applicants’ complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning ineffective investigation of their alleged ill-treatment by private individuals was communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants’ lawyer, who was invited to submit observations in response. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 28 July 2022, sent by registered post, the Registry warned the applicants’ lawyer that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases. No reply was received to that letter. In the absence of a response from the lawyer, the Registry sent a letter, dated 12 September 2022, by registered post, to the applicants. They were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations   had expired and that their lawyer had failed to respond. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application. The letter could not be delivered and returned to the Registry. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 March 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Veaceslav APOSTOL 1979 Moldovan Trușeni 2. Natalia APOSTOL 1981 Moldovan Trușeni